I refer to the Malaysiakini article The dangers of rhetoric

It is certainly ironic that while the writer appears to accuse other of spouting rhetoric, his own letter is full of rhetoric and short on substance.

Isn’t his exhortation to report to the police and charge Dr Mahathir for any wrongdoing a geyser of pure rhetoric? We all know the uselessness of making any police report on the misdeeds of prominent persons on the same side of the establishment as has been demonstrated to us time and again from police reports made by the opposition party.

The writer’s contention that he does not know the truth of what Mahathir did to Anwar with regards to the sodomy case of 1998 must rank as incredulous. Either he pretends not to know the sordid truth or he has buried his head in the sand and refuses to engage the facts for fear of discovering the painful truth that the object of his hero worship has feet of clay.

I suggest ‘Live and Learn’ does some research on the proceedings of that trial where voluminous writings on that infamous case still abound on the Internet. He should note the amendment of charges, the change of dates, the fickle testimony of the lead witness, the attempt to introduce fabricated evidence, the refusal to admit the defence’s evidence, the sole reliance on the accuser’s words and the number of times the judge practically saved the prosecution’s case from being demolished.

In case the writer accuses me of rhetoric, let me elaborate on the change of dates. First the alleged sodomy was claimed to have taken place in May 1994. Then the date was changed to May 1992 but after the prosecution discovered to their chagrin that the apartment alleged to be the scene of the crime had not been built, it was finally changed to March in 1993 at precisely 7.45pm. The use of a three month period was set to make it very difficult for Anwar to defend by alibi.

I doubt any reasonable person who has any knowledge of what happened in that notorious show trial can have any doubt at all as to whether the charge was trumped up or not but of course there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As to the comparison with Hitler which the writer took offence, I would say the comparison is most apt as Hitler was also known to have brought down his political opponents on trumped up sodomy charges.

For the record, so is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, so it appears that fabricated sodomy charges seem like the political weapon of choice among tyrants.

Whether Dr Mahathir was right or not to spurn the recovery package offered by the IMF during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 is a matter of debate. Countries such as Thailand and South Korea which have taken the IMF loan have healed their financial systems and emerged with their currencies strengthened while our ringgit is still a shadow of its pre-crisis level.

Lastly, the writer’s contention that race-based politics practiced in the right form are beneficial in fostering good racial relationships is shocking. Can he enlighten us on what is the right way to practice race based politics?

How can race relationships not be harmed when each race fights for its own rights and privileges? Our own nation is a textbook case study of how the races have remained polarised even after half a century of Merdeka due to race based politics.

By the way, his example of civil rights groups in US and Europe fighting for the rights of ethnic groups is not comparable to our race based politics. I’m puzzled as to what is the connection between civil rights groups championing ethnic rights and race based political parties?